Skip to main content

About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
for under $50 billion in taxes out of the private sector and giving it to washington to increase government spending, that is not the answer. the best answer is to come and put the money in the communities. i went down there today and he did not say, thank you for coming. please take this money and bring it back to washington. he said, go back to washington and tell them they need a reality check. we are tired of the overspending and the taxing and taking more money out of the economy. there are real challenges here. i used to live here. i worked and i lived over there. i understand. many businesses are hurting right now. regulatory tax uncertainty is the biggest challenge they have. >> tomorrow will be the one- year anniversary of senator brown's first vote against 22,000 jobs here in massachusetts. i hope everybody who knows someone who is unemployed, every business who would like to see those paychecks to spend in their shops, will remember that. that is how we jump-start the economy. we get work that needs to be done, and we put people back to work. the bill would have cost millionaires
the question is, whether or not the tax system that our government uses is fair. i think it is unfair, but it is not something we can address in the short term. the tax cuts the vice president and i got three years ago, no, that's not fair. if you earn 20,000, 40,000, you may have gotten 1,000. if you made let's less than 10,000 you suffered a loss of $400. that's not fair. that's basically unfair. not only is it unfair, but economically, it has darn-near destroyed this country. there is a $750 billion tax cut over five years. that's one of the reasons we're facing the debts we have now. >> mr. vice president? >> i think i've said all i want to say. . that is the part of this debate devoted to domestic affairs. we will now turn to foreign affairs. >> vice president bush, since your administration came to power, the president has promised a stern response against terrorism. but attacks have continued in lebanon and the middle east. what can be done to stop the? stop?too it? >> terrorism is very difficult to stop. when you see the lebanon building hit by terrorism, the israelis, with al
responsibility. we need to take a very different way of looking at how the federal government spends money. i support a moratorium on your marks because it had gotten out of control before it to congress. but that's the beginning slice of a much bigger question about how we bring down the size of the federal government. i have called for a 1% reduction in overall discretionary spending. i have called for a balanced approach on deficit reduction requiring the wealthy to pay more and more cutting in the federal government. >> you have 90 seconds. >> again, shame on you. you thought this campaign is going to be a coronation because you're a democrat and now you are in a serious race with a serious woman and you are desperate. therefore you raise these issues. my plan sites every word that i used from the brightest in the best to but my plan together. you would be better served to be putting a plan together. you need to be honest with the people of connecticut. you need to be honest about your special interest loans. to be honest about your attendance in washington. shame on you for taking this d
electronically it was as good as if it had been printed by the government printing office, it delivered over here and then distributed. there were other things we did, mandatory wed casting -- web castin, really pushing companies to do that. as part of the effort to make electronic texts available in serve as a place where we could measure our own efforts to comply with the three day rule. we traded a centralized portugal for text coming up in the coming week. for all of this year that has been online for stuff coming to the floor there a lot of good work from our colleagues that were in the clerk's office. i would expect that would come on line for commit these early next year. that work is ongoing. looking at the next congress, i do not see the need for a whole lot of rule changes on this front. we're still in the process of the rule changes we made last time and evaluating their impact on what we're doing here in terms of our day to day legislative business. i think individual committees are trying to work really hard to make themselves more transparent. i know we are at the rules committee. i
declaring war irdlede pscriptiondrugexpaded they are concerned with the lack of accountability in government. in the case of occupy, it's wall street, and guess what -- they are both right. >> he summed it up beautifully. >> when you were running, it was a matter of people getting to call into an 800-number. now we're into this world of social media, where you can tweet something out in a matter of seconds. do you think that would make a third-party iran or any kind of a people's movement easier today than it was 20 years ago when you had to rely on people calling in to a phone number? do you think the computer revolution, which you have been involved since the start, and in particular at the social media revolution of the last several years, should create a situation where you are on twitter, where you can mobilize people more easily? >> sure. >> shouldn't that make the type of solution you are talking about, people demanding change, similar to have? >> that is what we need, and i think that is a good way to do it. >> the problem would be they have the tools today to instantly to mobilize.
existed. it was struck down as applied to the states in 1997 but still applied to the federal government. i think we have already had two earlier decisions from district court on the merits of that, both of them involving private for-profit plaintiffs, and the issue is split just among those first two courts. there are procedural issues because of the ongoing regulatory process that might create a sort of interim step, but that actually is probably going to get resolved between now and august 1, 2013. the administrative process will be done, and the courts will invariably go straight to the merits, and you will start to get married decisions uniformly by the end of next year. >> does that depend on what the administration does and who wins and all that? >> not really. what the administration has put into play by virtue of the regulatory process is a relatively limited piece of the entire problem, and the constraints put upon themselves in addressing the limited issue indicates that there will not be much if any relief in the offing for the people who have sued, and that is why they have
policy issues, and this of course, we will leave it up in the transitional government to devise its foreign policy, hopefully in consultation with the traditional democratic -- this is not our task. >> i am a student at georgetown university, and my question is have you considered the idea of accountability causing members of the regime or individuals or groups associated with the regime to prolong power or to hold on to power for a longer period of time? and you considered the idea of pardons for certain groups and weighed that against the benefits of ending the conflict earlier? >> this issue has been quite -- because some syrians feel they want to bring these people who have the responsible for bloodshed and corruption to be tried and be accountable. you also have the pragmatic political need that syrians have to face. we recommend, we try to create a kind of combination of conditional amnesty, and also vetting rather than a complete baathification. that has been done in syria for at least hundreds of years. there are mechanisms to deal with this, and more positively than we imag
one work out? and then it will hire more government workers. there is nothing wrong with government workers, but that will knock the economy going. and then they have plans to make investments, they say. a friend of mine said that they don't want to pick winners and losers, they just pick losers. and then they want to raise taxes. i don't think anyone believes raising taxes creates more jobs. whatjust don't understand it takes to get this economy going, and we have a plan. five key elements. paul spoke about them last night. number 1, we are taking full advantage of our oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, renewables. we will take advantage of our energy, and that will protect and grow energy, jobs, and also manufacturing. there are a lot of manufacturing jobs, including in the glass industry, that use a lot of energy. when energy is less expensive, jobs come back. under president obama, we have lost 600,000 manufacturing jobs. we want to bring jobs back to america. that is number one. number 2, we're going to make trade work for us. we will open up more markets for our goods. but if pe
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)